The Arrival The completion Authority and angle

Transcription

Manas Na’ala, The Arrival, The completion and closure - www.manasnaala.net
The Arrival
The completion
Authority and angle
How to explain that from the founders on the Eurasian plains -the Aryan
tribes of Sredny Stog1) of Sintashta-Arkaim and of Andronovo- up to
Mohandas "Mahatma" Gandhi, Hinduism has never really found the
secrets of existence? How to make clear that Zarathustra and Moses,
Jesus and Muhammad spoke inspired about a revolutionary new idea,
monotheism, but did not completely understand that idea themselves,
did not really were knowing what they were talking about? How can a
person say this? Does the writer imagine being
godlike himself and the sole possessor of the
God-given truth? It is clear to everyone why no
one abides anymore by Zeus and Jupiter, or
the sun gods Inti or Ra. Nobody from Scotland
is still afraid of Bel, the Celtic god of death and
king of the underworld, nor draws anyone still
hope on Cliodna, Bel’s counterpart and goddess
of life after death. Nobody believes anymore in
the Norse god Odin -also known as Woden,
Wotan, Wothan, Weda, Wuodan and Guodanand
rightly
so,
because
these
gods
and
goddesses have no authority over us anymore,
none of them.
How do you say that nothing is what it seems
and that all is different? How dare you to write
it down? How do you find the words to say that
religion is the weirdest conception -the most
misleading concept- ever invented? How is it
possible that renowned philosophers in the
name of science put God and religion in the
trash
and,
by
degrees,
advocate
atheism,
simultaneously elevating science to the new
C lio dna
religion? It all looks so much like the lame helping the blind, children
discussing the issues of the grownups - it is touching in a way. The
courage -if courage it is- to say all this arises after taking off your
blindfold and stopping running in circles, after scraping your airways to
1
breathe the free air, turning off the deafening noise creating some
silence, by realizing that all religious doctrines revolve not primarily
around notions as truth, origin, destiny and more exalted folderol, but
around the notions of authority and power.
Buddhists, Indians, Jews, Vikings, Christians, Aboriginals, Muslims, Incas,
Hindus, scientists, of course they are not a crazy lot. The agreement
among all these people is that they, sometimes desperately, are -or
were- looking for the truth. Looking for the reason for existence, the
meaning of life, the origin of life - each in the to them appropriate way.
All try to get in touch with the loss, the answer to the question where do
we come from, the answer to the question why. The last attempt at an
answer took place round about the year 700. No religion has succeeded
in satisfyingly and convincingly explaining the answer to the question
why, the truth according to that religion, to the rest of the world.
Something then must be seriously wrong with the answer that each of
the religions, cults and sects have formulated. Something is missing, or
there is too much, or more likely, something is wrong with the way of
looking at the problem, with the perspective.
While the answers are wrong, sometimes even strange and often appear
to serve a political purpose rather than a metaphysical, the way in which
the ancient religions have influenced the thinking of contemporary man
should not be underestimated. That influence is huge, even with those
who say not to believe. Of the people who say not to believe and actually
no longer go to a place of worship nor somehow feel related to this
ancient wont, still the great majority says to think there is probably
something, it is the adherent of somethingism. Do these people really
believe in 'something' they cannot define, or is their belief in something
rather the sign of a withdrawal syndrome within a culture -that wasimbued with religion? What is certain is that the modern world is held
hostage by ideas that were formulated thousands of years old for an
entirely different world. Still, man is the same as then, I hear people
object. No, man is not the same, because the world of men has changed.
The way man can respond to the world is materially different from when
Maharishi Kapila or Moses lived. Religion is the answer to the question no
longer asked, the wrong answer to the question asked. Man sets no
longer the question of the meaning of existence, he poses the question of
the meaning of his existence.
Book burnings take place in intolerant cultures, yet ignoring books is on
the list of 'unforgivable' affairs immediately thereafter. Studying the
2
ancient religious books, or at least occasionally reading in them, is as
studying history and no one has ever become a lesser person by that. It
is your angle of incidence what it is all about, the way you look, your take
on it all. For the interpretation of the writings deemed sacred a person
can do best to consult himself - the 'part' of yourself that does not have
to answer to anyone. Every person can, proportional to the extent to
which he has freed himself from controlling indoctrinations, get an
independent insight into what the ancient forefathers wrote. A personal
autonomous insight into the universal truth is not only said to be tucked
away in books, but is at the root of yourself. Furthermore, no wise is wise
enough to tell you what is waiting for you in the depths of your heart.
That this might be something unpleasant, full of hell and damnation or
bad karma, is the spectre of the unwise. A dread that is sickeningly
abused by those with sinister -political- motives. Whoever wants to find
what is at the base of his being only finds there the love this world is so
lacking. Who heals himself from the diseases of the world, finds his
inalienable share in the universal truth at the core of his being. Believe no
one who preaches hell and damnation, for he tries to wrong-foot you
-giving a false perspective- and exploit your fear for his own power
interests.
Religion is too important to be left to the religious, the gurus of the old
epoch. Yet neither attach too much importance to the scientists, the
gurus of the new era. Follow no guru and determine your own blend of
'physics and metaphysics'. You are the only one who can determine the
for you valid relation between information and interpretation. The
scientists who reject religion know just one way of getting somewhere.
These scholars hold on to their own physical confidences with an iron
grip. If you then want to put your trust in scientists, science as such, you
will be dependent on piggybacking to science's destiny, whereby it
remains uncertain to your own sense of direction whether you will arrive
at the place of your own destiny. In other words, science shows only one
material road. The scientist prompts you to accept his theories. Although
these theories are written in the most beautiful language of the universe,
mathematics, it is no more than a monocrystalline language in which only
one aspect can be expressed, the quantifiable. If it is not quantifiable or
cannot be made quantifiable, then it cannot be put into words in the
language of the material scientific universe. Not surprising then, that
many scientists deny the existence of a god or advocate atheism
passionately. It seems that scientists create their own world and
deliberately seal the roads leading outward, while they 'ask' common
3
people to hitch the ride to their specific scientific destination. Just like the
old gurus 'asked' people to believe in their creed's destination of
salvation.
The persuasive hold that science has on people, serves the same social
function previously performed by the persuasive powers of religion - the
proclaimed word is law. Religion we cannot leave behind by becoming
a-religious or even antireligious - that would be tantamount to denying or
fighting something that exists. That is
really childish and you blind yourself
to an aspect of yourself. You only will
remain stuck in somethingism. Thus
you are saying that there is something
wrong, you just do not know that it is
your heart. The atheist then must be
even less pleased, because basically
he says that he has no heart. The
certainty that science claims to offer
all of us, using science as a modern
substitute for the former -societal- security of religion, offers not a viable
option. The total denial of the metaphysical only ensures a clear field for
the physical, the interests of the materialistic well-being. It gives rise to
the search for a social redistribution of power and the emergence of the
newest religion, Materialigion. The worship of the golden calf a Christian
would say. So, beside a clear head, a rational base, you also need a clear
heart, a base of trust in yourself.
The heart of the matter
The human tends to closely watch authority. He does that to learn
something or strangely enough the opposite, to feel free of having to
learn. He does it because someone else is further, higher or better than
him and because he wants to pull up to that person, or he just does not
do this at all because he is not motivated to learn, wants to remain
passive or feels passive. Everyone usually shows combinations of the two
predispositions. A person can be immensely interested in music and not
at all in politics, or he has a great interest in religion and specifically not
in information technology. In the field of which he believes not to know
anything he looks at the authorities, those who do know more about the
subject. The average person knows little or nothing about many things
4
and is therefore inclined to hang his life to an authority, often belittling
his own talents -also as a result of listening to authority anyhow-. In
contrast with this mechanism, the religious groups, politicians and
scientists surround and protect their field of knowledge with jargon to
such a degree that the average person cannot do much else than to
surrender in that area, although he perhaps might want otherwise. Apart
from the mythological confusion of tongues apparently also a confusion of
thoughts exists, in which no person anymore has the impression that he
is capable of anything - thus people are educated and trained within the
Luciwhear paradigm. The dependencies, the pains of the impossibilities,
frustrations one perhaps may say, make a person into a little person,
with small thoughts in a small area. A person thus becomes ever more
susceptible to authority and ultimately to oppression. The only remedy a
person has against this is truly to discover and develop his talents
-whichever they areas deeply within himself as feasible. The true
satisfaction and fulfilment of the human being is contained herein. A
person who is 'an authority' for himself does not know the pain of
impossibilities, is therefore less or no longer susceptible to the authority
of others and by that has lifted the Luciwhear paradigm.
After and in addition to digging in the depths of himself a person has the
possibility to build his talents in width. Looking for those, who have
similar talents and fulfilment. They are those who because of the
satisfaction their talent offers have no interest in competition, but in
cooperation - there is no grandness in gain, but only in sharing. By
developing one's talents the pain of impossibilities is transformed into the
solutions of the possibilities. The talents one may not have and see in the
other, are no longer any reason for dominance, but for the recognition.
The spell of power is broken and the strength of the sum is born. No
cooperative collectivism, the collection is composed of and determined by
individuals.
This all may sound relatively visionary -especially in the ear of an
atrabilious person, someone who is sick- but it is a feasible scenario. Not
next year or the next generation, but ever since it is the only solution.
Because it is the only solution where the individual does not have to obey
the ruler -spiritual or secular- and cannot be suppressed or punished if he
does
not.
Indeed,
it
sounds
idealistic,
but
not
unrealistic
when
considering that between, say, the Napoleonic wars and today the mind
set of many grew to differ and violence in the world has declined
substantially. As result of increasingly the entire globe spanning news
5
gathering, in the media it appears ever more violence and war are
present in the world, but the reality is exactly the opposite. Wars like the
First and Second World War no longer seem possible and regional wars
-such as the planned war between the United States and the then British
Empire in the thirties of the twentieth century- take an ever more limited
form. Though long teetering on the edge, a major and possible nuclear
war between the great blocs seems no longer feasible, since the end of
the Cold War and the destruction of its symbol, the Berlin Wall. The wars
thereafter took place no longer with predominantly territorial gain in sight
but with economic hegemony at stake - such as trade wars, battles for
resources, economic conflicts. That the struggle for economic dominance
can initiate a military conflict should still be considered as a real and
imminent possibility at any time. On the other hand, an economic bloc
can never sufficiently anticipate and therefore has to fear the destruction
of its means of production because of armed conflict. The battle for the
possession of raw materials is one potential cause for armed conflict, the
conflict between ethnic and ethno-religious groups can be another cause.
In some areas the two go together as source of disagreement with
whichever -semblance- justification of the authorities.
The downward trend of violence and the ascending line of peaceful
coexistence correlates highly with the upward trend in people getting an
education. The extent to which people are educated determines the
degree to which they can be guided towards war. Who is unemployed,
who is financially and economically aground and has no prospect of
improving his situation, who not in any way can find recognition and help
for his problems, is more willing to resolve his situation in a radical way
-by force if necessary- and will be deluded by envy and hatred. This was
the situation Adolf Hitler felt in and with him millions of Germans after
World War I. Who in his age has built a life with personal worth and
content, has no cause for desperate measures, other than the defence
against envy and hate - what is the best defence and is an attack
sometimes not seen as the best defence? The best way to counteract
wars is therefore to push forward on education on both sides of the
imaginary line and being careful not to leave it at that - first every person
needs a decent roof over his head, enough to eat and the possibility of
realizing his talents. However, any real development for human beings
can only then occur if they can also get rid of 'their own' powers that be not only from those of the opponent. When he can get rid of the Ancient
Spirit, the Luciwhear paradigm, which haunts man since time immemorial
- since the village elder up to and including the present president. Yet, no
6
one who is thoroughly engaged to help himself rises so high that he
cannot bend down to pick up someone else. This adage does not carry
egalitarianism, precisely not, but is a call for solidarity.
What is written here is not a brand new political program, not even an
old one, nor is it the amalgamation of all political programs or a choice
from the best elements. A selection from the instruments of policy can
never be a guarantee for a fair system, anywhere. Each system, if it can
be called a system, is derived from its constituent parts, the people. You
first have to put on your socks before you can put on your shoes. And
when you put on your socks, make sure you washed your feet first. Each
society of people can only be healthy if it consists of people who are
cured or curing, people who have healed themselves. People who do not
walk on the leash of anyone anymore, but who base themselves on the
found inner strength - the force that does not make loneliness a curse:
Love. These are people who rely on their own strength and who do not
need anyone to take advantage of, other than as a possible inspiration.
Only when your feet are washed and dried and you have put on clean
socks, then put on your sturdy walking shoes, because now truly comes
the great work.
Closure
The meaning of life
Sometimes I get very weary of hearing people wondering, through the
ages, what the meaning of life could be, the meaning of existence. People
who ask this, roughly, are in one of two
categories. People who are unhappy
-why is this happening to me- and
people who seem to have lots of time
-what else is there- because others do
the heavy or tedious work for them,
maybe
even
category.
I
those
get
from
weary
too
the
first
because
implicitly or explicitly the question is
always asked just the same way, as
also stated in any religion or philosophy
whose existence I know of: what is it
7
that gives meaning to life? Rarely, virtually never, the question is put in
the reverse sequence, the true sequence I deem: what can I do to give
meaning to it all? When the question is stated this way, also another
element is contributed, namely the doing, taking action. The doing, or
the leaving off, is one of the essential and defining characteristics of
being human. This in fact answers the question about the meaning of life:
we are all here to do something. The next question then is, why are we
all here to do something? On that question here the answer will never
come. The answers that can be found in this universe are about the what
and the how, but the question about the why will always remain
unanswered. People who think they have found the answer to a why
question, on closer inspection must admit that they have found a
complicated way to answer a question to the how. The only tiny clue that
man has to the why is derived from his ability to act in this universe.
Especially in the beginning of this book series are clues to the why of the
why, however, these are all allegorical references of which should not be
assumed that everyone believes them at first glance. Better to keep that
story in mind when one is searching for wisdom in one’s own depths,
taking the inner road.
The actions of man changes the lives of all and of the universe, although
at best man observes the consequences of his actions as in the butterfly
effect. Actions that happen from an inner found peace and recovery,
have a healing effect on life and on the universe. The human is very ill
while living on earth and uses his life to heal himself - elsewhere in this
book this is explained in detail. The religions, the representatives of the
Ancient Spirit of the Luciwhear paradigm, are the pitfalls for man on his
way through life. An example. By mouth of Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita,
Hinduism advocates detached acting, a form of action that calls for acting
from the soul without heeding the effect of that action in the world.
However, how can Hinduism assume man knows his soul, for man is
sick2) . It often takes a lifetime to heal and then to proceed to undefiled
acting. The individual puts the healing cycle in motion, keeps it going and
rounds it truly to own discretion - does a person ever stop learning? No
book with wise texts possibly can know it all better than man himself can
know. This finding also applies to the other major religions, the
Indo-Semitic
religions
founded
by
Zoroaster,
Moses,
Jesus
and
Muhammad. Despite the wonderful narratives, the profound reflections
that may be found thereon in the Bhagavad Gita, the Avesta, the
Tanakh, the Bible and the Koran are mainly aimed at directing people religiously and politically. All these books
8
were written from
the
perspective of the authority that had to bring ordinary people to a certain
realization and a specific ground for action. The importance of the acting
has always been formulated from the interests of the collective -city,
state, nation- to which the individual had to adjust. Man was thus faced
with demands from the outside that rather made sicker than provided
with a breeding ground for healing.
More and more groups of people are going to arise that on the way on
the inner path unite in a common felt unity. Not based on national
language, ethnicity, possession or any other superficial characteristic.
Whether such a group is a collective the individuals of that group should
decide. I can imagine that someone does not want to belong to a group,
and finds his or her actions as individual an adequate expression of the
meaning of his or her life. I have always liked the image of the homey inn
on the inner road where the weary
traveller per chance meets
like-minded people. Where after each goes his own way again. There are
butterflies and there are groups of butterflies. The conclusion is that
through his actions the healing human in real life changes the nature of
man, his presence on earth and thus his impact on earth and the
universe with it.
The purpose of the universe
The question, has the universe a purpose, can be easily answered. Yes,
that goal is present, obviously, because otherwise we, humans, would
not. This seems a rather egocentric answer, it is not, it is an emphatic
answer. To be so certain, you need to drop everything that you believe
and you must read, watch and listen to all the information without
prejudice. The video of Neil deGrasse Tyson [see note 3 ] is full of
information, but also full of beliefs and assumptions. The contributions of
other scientists on the project "Does the Universe have a Purpose"3) also
exhibit assumptions that are platitudes and are not examined by the
respective
writer,
other
than
while
philosophizing
in
their
head,
philosophizing based on what they have inherited. To answer the
question positively and simply, you, however, only have to turn to the
here and now, look at that what IS. A person is all alone in a gigantic
cosmos and he IS, he perceives so he IS, he lives and IS and dies and IS
not -here-. This has nothing to do with self-centeredness, it is a fact.
True egocentrism arises only because man says or implies, that he is the
9
center of the universe, or perhaps more precisely, because man thinks
from his own perspective when studying the universe4) . This perspective
might be hidden in the words of all those who address this issue. Is it
then so hard to conceive that we are an expression of the universe that
wants to understand itself? Due to the nature of our presence, by the
fact that we are here, the universe is expressing itself, as an artist
expresses what is inherent to him. Everything that is in this universe,
what has gone before us and what follows us, is an expression of the
universe5) . This is an independently observable raw fact. We are built
from the materials of this universe. This last finding itself in no way infers
a preconceived purpose of the universe with us as outcome, because that
is humanly impossible to prove. When we see ourselves as the outcome
of the purpose of the universe, this would be the same as seeing us as
the final result of evolution. All kinds of forms of life have been here
before us and undoubtedly will be here after us, both on earth and in the
universe.
Man who wants to understand the universe is like the child who wants to
understand his parents -it is not impossible, but highly unlikely it will pan
out-. It is the other way around - we are indeed the children of the
universe. In this universe amongst others we humans are the means the
universe uses to gain insight into itself. This reduces man not to a mere
tool nor does it make the question of man to the meaning of existence
redundant. The perspective, however, is quite different from what people
hitherto have adopted. Until now to discover the meaning of life, man
tries to look outside himself -with telescopes and microscopes- yet only
encounters a mirror in a mirror gallery where the images always reflect in
the questions that arise when a question is answered. Truly to discover
the meaning of life and the purpose of the universe a human would do
better first to look within and only look outwardly, when the questions
awaiting inside are answered. The questions then asked, are of an
entirely different nature - not merely quantifying. It is more sensible first
to mature before questions are formulated. Incidentally, the questions
cannot be put to the headmaster, but are questions you must answer
yourself. Questions that validate a hypothesis and answers that validate
your theory - your share in the universal truth.
Until then, in a metaphor and a personification the power that governs
the universe must be called Luciwhear and the pattern in which
everything and everyone are still 'captured' the Luciwhear paradigm.
Only when man, to him I will confine myself now, can ask questions that
can be formulated independently of this perceptual structure, this way of
10
cognition, only then can man discover the meaning of life and purpose of
the universe. Then, the allegories from the first portion of the first book
in this series are no longer necessary, then the answers that every man
craves are transparent without the need of a God with a beard. Then
classifications as deism, theism and atheism are completely superfluous,
as anyone with a meek look on life already knows that the dichotomy
good and evil is absurd and unworkable. Then man has contributed to
the universe that understands itself, man that is an expression of the
universe. Then Luciwhear has taken a step in the understanding of his
nature, the nature of his existential shape. Man has not helped
Luciwhear, but Luciwhear has helped himself -by means of the human
being- to understand his being and thereby everything and everyone that
arises from him, his creations, including humans: the spectrum of
creations within the power of the rational, the sagacious, the analysing.
Luciwhear, man he created and everything else he created, is then one
step closer to the formulation of his talents and can know about the
talents that he lacks. Ultimately, Luciwhear can articulate what it is that
leaves him incomplete, what he lacks - then also his people, humans.
Then the light in the universe can be extinguished and everyone goes
home. The arrival will be the great feast of the reunion of Love and Light
in conjunction with WarmBeauty, The FirstOne who made it all possible
visible again to everyone.
Just drop everything you are doing and pick it up again the right way.
Free yourself from the Ancient Spirit and become a Free Spirit. Unleash
yourself from the leashes of the Luciwhear Paradigm, for you are bound
to this master without you probably even knowing. Break on through the
boundaries of what is hell to all, to the other side of this existence.
Realize you are immunized for beauty, desensitized for love. See that
beauty and love are the warmth you need and the self-recognition you
crave. Heal yourself. Know that what you lack is not available as a
commodity on sale, but only as a gift freely accessible at the core of your
being. You do not need to be the customer of anyone’s merchandise no
matter how temptingly exhibited, however recommended by other
consumers. You know it, for you have felt how to get well all along. Trust
yourself and do away with those who ask to trust them. Those who may
be trusted do not solicit it, those who speak truth will never announce it.
Just take a long look in the mirror and become who you are. Do not
believe me, for that is not what I ask. Though words are too small for my
11
voice, read my words, for I am the messenger hoping to have comforted
you - a bit.
Home
Tired but happy I am resting in my bed, while outside the sun is shining
brightly. I roll over a bit and look at my wife who smiles when our eyes
meet. We missed each other for such a long time, but now time no longer
exists. Last night we brought time to an end in sparkling fireworks. We
are back and are not going to leave again.
12
Annex, Does the Universe Have a Purpose?
The following scientists participated in the discussions on "Big Questions"
of the "John Templeton Foundation". It must be noted that most of the
participants are people from the Anglo-Saxon culture and language area
-except a Belgian and a Frenchman- and most likely speak from a
Judeo-Christian tradition. The Frenchman in the company later converted
to Islam, but otherwise no scientists with an Islamic background, or for
example from the Hindu culture, have contributed to the variety of
standpoints.
The views represented in this 'conversation', present a profile as can be
expected of Western culture, the dominant culture. For that reason these
scientists are here commented on primarily for the benefit of the readers
of this book, on the one hand to compare their own views with those of
the participating scientists and on the other hand the views and
considerations articulated in "The Key". The reader is emphatically invited
to give his or her vision on the reader's forum. That reader’s forum can
be reached
via the contact link at the bottom
of the webpage
of manasnaala.net.
In the setup of this section each time a brief summary is given of the
position of the scientist, with the possibility
to study
the entire
contribution [www.templeton.org/purpose/index.html], followed
by a
brief commentary. Additionally an attempt is made to add an in this
context as relevant as possible 'snippet of video' about and with the
scientist mentioned [www.manasnaala.net]. Interested readers of course
may find further material on the web or elsewhere.
Lawrence M. Krauss - Professor of Physics and Astronomy
at Case Western Reserve University. It is unlikely there is
a purpose to the universe.
“While nothing in biology, chemistry, physics, geology,
astronomy,
evidence
of
or
cosmology
purpose
in
has
ever
nature,
provided
science
can
direct
never
unambiguously prove that there is no such purpose. As
Carl Sagan said, in another context: Absence of evidence is not evidence
of absence.” Carl Sagan's quotation is one of my favourites and someone
who uses this quotation in a correct way must be a person with insight.
However, enough of nostalgic sentiment. I would like to ask Lawrence
13
Krauss if he ever heard of "galleon blindness". This is the circumstance by
which the Maya -their descendants- did not see the galleons of the
Spanish conquerors, because they did not grasp the phenomenon
galleon, that while the galleons were in clear view of the coast and the
conquerors were already on the beach - and were worshipped, as if
Itzamna had returned. Would Mr. Krauss recognize God when he stood in
front of him? Whoever closes his eyes proves nothing else than that he is
blind. Furthermore, Krauss not really chooses in the polemics and from
his words I understand that he essentially says that it could be that the
universe has a purpose, however, that it is not really likely and that he
regards the central role of the traditional religions as exhausted. “Thus,
organized religions, which put humanity at the center of some divine
plan, seem to assault our dignity and intelligence. (...) We should not
despair, but should humbly rejoice in making the most of these gifts, and
celebrate our brief moment in the sun.” Thus, Mr. Krauss ends his
contribution.
Comment: As Lawrence Krauss many people are. People who still partly
stand in the culture of the religions, but who otherwise have taken leave
of this ancient mirage - perhaps Krauss is something of a somethingist.
He probably fits within Richard Dawkins’s fifth category and then is a
“technical agnostic”, someone who sets the probability of the existence of
God at less than fifty percent and who says he is not sure whether God
really exists. The 'problem' with Mr. Krauss and people like him is, that
they link the existence of a God to the being right or wrong of the religion
they have ever espoused. If their religion in fact is nonsense -but they
dare not yet say this aloud- then God does not exist either. In this book
in many places I have described, that the God of religion is nonsense,
however not, that consequently God is nonsense. Krauss does not see in
his religion a 'higher purpose', but that does not mean there is no 'higher
purpose'. God, religion and the divine plan -if I may formulate simplifiedare that essential in my vision that they cannot be left in the trust of the
religions. They made God into their political front man and made religion
an addiction of the people. Religiosity has nothing to do with stargazing,
as Mr. Krauss puts half joking, but everything with reaching the bottom
of the inner source, although for many people at first that turns out to be
an inner cesspool. However, for everyone, everyone, on the bottom of
the inner a discovery is in waiting and thereby the universal Love. What a
wonderful world that will be in which you do not have to rejoice humbly
in your gifts, but wherein you can fully develop your potential, enjoy your
14
talents. The discovery of the divine then follows almost automatically and
thus the meaning of creation.
David Gelernter - Professor of computer science at Yale
and a National fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Yes, there is a purpose to the universe.
Mr. Gelernter begins his contribution with what perhaps
may be called his personal mission statement. “Namely, to
defeat and rise above our animal natures; to create
goodness, beauty, and holiness where only physics and
animal life once existed; to create what might be (if we succeed) the only
tiny pinprick of goodness in the universe–which is otherwise (so far as we
know) morally null and void. If no other such project exists anywhere in
the cosmos, our victory would change the nature of the universe.” His
brief argument revolves around the fact that the human must transcend
his animal nature to create goodness, but simultaneously that the nature
of that goodness is hardly clearly defined. He ends with a reference to
the book of Job -from the Tanakh and the Bible- and concludes that man
must make do with what he has.
Comment: A genre of fatalistic optimism I can appreciate pervades the
learned contribution of Mr. Gelernter - humour the Jewish style.
No
nation has suffered so much as the Jewish people, as is often said,
although reality shows that every nation on earth has suffered terribly. In
the last few hundred years more than 145 million Chinese died because of
war and violence alone. Since the arrival of the Europeans well over 100
million native 'Americans' died of war and related disease. From which
the conclusion can be drawn that every nation suffered, that every
person suffers, like Job. Is this the result of the animal nature of man? Is
this the consequence of failure of goodness? Many reflections are
dedicated to the nature of man and the difference with the nature of the
animal. The animal kills out of necessity, to eat, while man also kills out
of being evil, or so it is said.
In the whole of this book, I aim to display that the big basic believe, like
in the root notion evil, brings forth no workable solution, for example by
counterbalancing it with goodness. Dichotomies such as good and evil
rarely if ever contribute to a solution - thus only parties are created that
claim to stand for the good and who wish to fight the others -the
wicked-. If, however, we assume that man is sick, sick from longing for
15
what he misses in his heart, each person may work on his personal
healing. Cura te ipsum. Physician, heal thyself. A statement generally
interpreted as a call not to reproach another, because you possibly are
doing exactly that wrong yourself -and furthermore all sorts of other
wrongs-. Such an interpretation leads to a passive, even fatalistic
attitude of guilt and self-reproach and in any case does not invite an
active attitude to create goodness, beauty and holiness. Beauty -never
mind goodness and holiness for the moment- cannot be created by
someone with a sick predisposition. The statement quoted here from
Luke, who would have recorded the statement from the mouth of Jesus,
leads to quite another process when it is construed as advice not to a
passive, but to an active attitude. It may very well lead to the person
who puts his upbringing and all other forms of indoctrination outside with
the rest of the trash and who subsequently descends deep within himself
to find what is missing in his heart. A sick person cannot create beauty,
even though he thinks he does, but only his cry for therapy. Only a
person on the mend can work to the beauty of the world and the
eventual discovery of universal Love. This is certainly no matter of
victory, not even self-conquest -for every victory also causes casualties-,
but of fulfilment and self-development of the talents that each person
carries. No passive attitude of undergoing, as the religions would have
you do, but the active attitude of healing, as is in your own best interest.
Paul Davies - Physicist, cosmologist, and astrobiologist. He
is the director of the Beyond Center at Arizona State
University. Perhaps there is a purpose to the universe.
“Where, then, is the evidence of "cosmic purpose?" Well,
it is right under our noses in the very existence of science
itself as a successful explanatory paradigm. Doing science
means figuring out what is going on in the world–what the
universe is "up to", what it is "about." If it isn't "about" anything, there
would be no good reason to embark on the scientific quest in the first
place, because we would have no justification for believing that we would
thereby uncover additional coherent and meaningful facts about the
world.” The contribution of Paul Davies establishes a relationship between
the nature of man, the nature of science and the nature of the universe.
His "perhaps" is related to his views on the relationship between intent
and purpose.
16
Comment: It is striking that many people, scientists are in this group,
when thinking about a possible target for the universe, describe reaching
the objective as the -final- stage of completion of a predefined plan. To
this end, so they at least infer, there must be a God, or a creating force,
who has so devised everything in advance. However, this is not the view,
but just one view on the combination intent and purpose, a view which is
strongly reminiscent of the clockmaker of the Enlightenment. It is a
conception of a tyrannical god, God as the great dictator who determines
everything in great detail. It is an outdated notion that also does not
reflect the uncertainty principle as formulated in quantum mechanics.
Another conception of intent and purpose, the view that I find much
more plausible, is that by which the cause of the universe, let us call him
still God for the moment, has put his child on a selfreflecting or even an
independent path. This view seems much more plausible to me, because
everything in the universe works in this way. There is origin and there is
descent, often seen as cause and effect. The descent and consequences
do not develop as with an automaton, but in an independent line along
the lines set out. The connection between parent and child, as for
example with humans, is derived from this, such as is the case in the
creation of a planetary system initiated by an igniting sun. This regularity
in itself says enough about the intentions of God. It therefore makes no
sense to attempt to distill the will of God from observations of the
universe and the human, and all that is in between, any more than it
makes sense to deduce the character of the father from the behaviour of
the son. The lines are plotted, with some effort one could see this as a
form of predestination, but developments take place independently
within these parameters, as parents have plans for the education of their
children -based on suspected or perceived talent- and the children make
their own choice from all the options.
Peter William Atkins - Fellow and professor of chemistry at
Lincoln College, Oxford. No, there is no purpose to the
universe.
"In the absence of evidence, the only reason to suppose
that
it
does
is
sentimental
wishful
thinking
and
sentimental wishful thinking, which underlies all religion, is
an unreliable tool for the discovery of truth of any kind."
This quotation from Mr. Atkins is so wonderful that I gladly wanted to
17
begin with it. The statement is red hot with underlying snags. The word
sentimental for him has an obvious negative connotation, like wishful
thinking. With the absence of evidence Atkins means most likely the
absence of scientific evidence. Scientific and measurable. That the
immeasurable in spite of its immeasurability is of great value is proven
daily by numerous scientists who based on a presumption, a hunch, draw
hypotheses and start their research. Furthermore, evidence is a relative
term, for in the history of science proof in the end has always been
undermined and replaced by better evidence or bettered through the
falsification of the once evidence. It would appear that Mr. Atkins liked to
open his contribution with a bang, a beautiful literary endeavour, that
unfortunately backfired and exhibits him as petty - and perhaps as
narrowminded as the religions for which he clearly has disdain. To which I
add that I agree with him when he takes the prevailing religions in his
crosshairs, yet whereby he simultaneously shuts his mind for future
developments in that field. This will only make the moment he discovers
the truth -of whichever nature- harder to achieve. Each rabid view
isolates a person of his capabilities.
“That we do not yet understand anything about the inception of the
universe should not mean that we need to ascribe to its inception a
supernatural cause, a creator, and therefore to associate with that
creator's inscrutable mind a purpose, whether it be divine, malign, or
even whimsically capricious.” Also from this statement it shines through
that Mr. Atkins takes the inexorable truth of science as a reference. If it
is not scientifically proven, then it does not exist officially, even when it
still seems to exist because of the old religious principles. It does not
come to Mr. Atkins that both views are false - quite a unscientific
attitude. That is to say that the old religious principles at best may be
seen as hypotheses, now refuted, and that the scientific method is flawed
because it only seeks to prove the measurable, and thus only analyses
part of reality - science can only measure the china sideboard, but cannot
express how
well and
beautifully it is made. Moreover, what is
supernatural? Only that bearded man in the clouds is supernatural,
rather unnatural, the fairytale of the authority. The supernatural does not
exist
- everything that exists is natural, physical, because this is the
physical universe. Mr. Atkins has not yet abandoned his old supernatural
and nonexistent God -the Christian equivalent of Zeus or Jove-, for he
still fights him. To fight something makes no sense, because fighting
thwarts what you aim at - your own goal. Let it go and move on, that is
more useful.
18
“Some theologians are perplexed by the nature of life after death, a
notion they have invented without a scrap of evidence.” I ask of Mr.
Atkins to think again about the law of the conservation of information.
The idea of life after physical death, as reported in the major religions is
in that form indeed presumably wild nonsense and intended only for the
dispossessed to reconcile them with their situation - religion has always
been politically abused. The idea of a life after physical death, as it is
driven by said physical law does not exclude it, even though physical
beings cannot perceive it - though many mediums claim they are capable
of it. We come from somewhere, we are also going somewhere.
Comment: It seems that Mr. Atkins is frozen solid in a certain stage of his
development. I do not mean only him in his development, but also in that
of metaphysical thinking in general. Atkins belongs to a generation that
has had to wrest religion to think free. This effort and development was
essential in the whole of the developments. The negative fanaticism -as if
there exists a positive fanaticism- of Mr. Atkins though has become now
more reminiscent of the fanaticism of former smokers who distance
themselves vehemently and ostentatiously from the tobacco industry and
those who still smoke. Smoking is a nasty habit and threatening to
health, but people who smoke die out by themselves. Would Mr. Atkins
be as fanatical as to the manner in which the energy for his cozy house is
generated - for instance?
Nancey Murphy - Professor of Christian Philosophy at
Fuller Theological Seminary. Indeed there is purpose to
the universe.
" (...) If there is a designer God whose purpose for the
universe includes life, especially intelligent life, then the
laws and constants had to be almost exactly what they
are. Thus, if we are to be here, the natural world must
contain almost exactly the amount of danger and destruction that it
does." Nancey Murphy in her contribution seeks to unite modern scientific
knowledge, and the views that go with it, with old Christian values and
principles. [Read here Murphy's original text]
Comment: I have always wondered what a person should do with the
values and norms of the old religions in mind. Not only Christianity, also
its predecessor Judaism, and its successor Islam, represent values that
are not old and venerable, but agone and outlived. This is the most
19
evidently visible in the atrocities committed in the name of this religion -I
see them all three as variants of one principle-, because the atrocities
were justified while referencing to that religion. The defence that
reprehensible acts based on a theory do not render the whole theory
invalid, is untenable, because the atrocities originated from the theory
anyway
- though only part of the theory. The God of Judaism,
Christianity and Islam would do well to take part in aggressiveness
therapy, or better, his followers should do so. With the other religions it
is not better.
That aggressiveness therapy may only be successful for humans provided
the course is not followed with an external expert, but only by merely
looking into the mirror; ecce homo, behold the human. A person knows
himself -potentially- better than any other person at all. When a person
consults a fellow human, there is always the risk that the consultant
seeks to improve his status at the expense of the consulter. The process
of self-healing is an extremely difficult sometimes arduous task along an
apparently dangerous road, but it is the only way. Some principles of the
religions come in useful, but it is for a person self to decide what they
are, not for another mere mortal to determine. Throwing away the old is
always silly simply because the study of history can be very enlightening.
Simultaneously it is true that the most valuable principles that are close
to one's heart, do no date from the past - they are very modern.
Owen Gingerich - Professor Emeritus of Astronomy and of
the History of Science at Harvard University and a senior
astronomer emeritus at the Smithsonian Astrophysical
Observatory. Yes, there is purpose to the universe.
“Frankly, I am psychologically incapable of believing that
the universe is meaningless. I believe the universe has a
purpose, and our greatest intellectual challenge as human
beings is to glimpse what this purpose might be. (...) Only gradually did I
come to appreciate how magnificently tuned the universe is for the
emergence of intelligent life.” Owen Gingerich argues that the fact that
thinking man is in this universe is sufficient evidence that the universe is
meaningful and therefore has a purpose. God reveals himself in the
personalities and intelligence of man, ironically also in those of an atheist.
Comment: To the contribution of Mr. Gingrich, I have little to add. The
universe IS with man in it. Who knows a universe with countless other
20
sites with intelligent life of which man as yet has no knowledge. In
addition, it does not matter so much, that the God of whom Gingrich
speaks is the God of only the culture from which he originates, or that
the original creator of all is the entity in the background with his creation
Luciwhear as the ‘caretaker’ of the physical universe. After all, we are
seeking for a reason for the Love of God, not the daily observable
Luciwhear presents to us. The naturalness and tranquillity with which
Gingrich wrote his contribution for the moment makes it irrelevant to
distinguish between the FirstOne and Luçal, since the end is the
reunification of everything and everyone anyway.
Bruno Guiderdoni, The author converted to Islam and is
now called Bruno Abd al-Haqq Guiderdoni - Astrophysicist
and the Director of the Observatory of Lyon, “Centre de
Recherche Astrophysique de Lyon et Observatoire de
Lyon”, France. It is very likely there is a purpose to the
universe.
Also Bruno Guiderdoni mentions the wonderful way the
universe is finely tuned to allow for the emergence of biological
complexity. Still, can we herein also discover God's signature, he
wonders. He argues that this is not so and that we live in one of the
universes of the multiverse. This theory, “... states that we don't live in a
universe fine-tuned for life so much as we happen to live in a universe,
one of many, that by a cosmic accident just happens to be the kind that
supports biological life. In other words, we're not special, we're just
lucky.” The multiverse theory also states that in other universes
conditions may prevail in which biological life has not arisen at all, or in
which arose precisely the opposite of our universe -because it is not
dominated by matter as we know it, but by antimatter-, or where history
has taken place as we know it, yet with a different outcome -where John.
F. Kennedy and Mahatma Gandhi were not shot, or where Hitler has won
the Second World War-. The complex mathematics that is necessary to
develop the idea of a multiverse can be no accidental byproduct though,
according to Guiderdoni. “This is why, at the end of the day, I can't
refrain from thinking that there actually is purpose in the universe.”
Comment: When for the first time I heard of the multiverse theory -the
popularized form, because I am not a mathematician- and of brane
theory, I understood that the finite nature of the universe was
21
established. When I was a small child, my father posed the very thought
experiment of a finite universe to me accompanied by the question, what
could thereafter be beyond the end. I did not know then, nor does Dr.
Neil Turok knows really what is behind the border of the universe. Turok
is director of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Canada and
one of the founders of brane theory - for the reader's benefit a video is
available in the video section on the site manasnaala.net. Brane theory
and multiverse theory is just that, a theory and a possible explanation,
as also Turok emphasizes.
In brane theory and the finiteness of the universe I have always seen a
virtual scientific confirmation of the words in this book -though not
sought after-, whereby this universe is given to Luciwhear to shape his
vision in an in time and scope defined analysis. Behind the border of this
universe is the original world where every person after physical death
returns to and where the end of the material universe on a gentle, lovely
heavenly evening is seen as spectacular fireworks. The founder of the Big
Bang theory, the Louvain -Belgium- professor and Catholic priest Georges
Lemaître, has always sort of detested that Pope Pius XI proclaimed, in
1931 with the publication of the theory, that the big bang was the
moment when God created the universe. I suspect that likewise Neil
Turok will kind of detest that his brane theory may prove that 'heaven'
exists.
Finally, I would like to suggest to Guiderdoni to think again about the
notion of coincidence. To my understanding there is no such notion as
coincidence, but the term with which a human indicates, limited by his
perception or even his ability of perception, an event of which he does
not know or can know either the cause or the consequence. The human
is too limited to see both ends.
Christian de Duve - Biochemist. He received the 1974
Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine. No, there is no
purpose to the universe.
A few quotations from the contribution of Christian de
Duve: “A "purpose" presupposes a mind that conceived it,
as well as the ability to implement it. In the present case,
this means that the owner of the mind not only created
the universe the way it is, but could have created another universe and
decided to create the existing one for a specific reason.” “Being the ones
22
who ask the question, it is obvious that we see ourselves as at least part
of God's goal. (...) what is peculiar about the universe is that it happens
to have just the right physical properties to give rise to life and, through
life, to human minds. Such an anthropocentric view of the creation is,
however, not readily reconciled with what is known of the evolutionary
origin of humankind.” De Duve continues with a reference to the French
biologist
Jacques
Monod
who
concludes
“that
the
universe
is
a
meaningless entity in which life and mind arose by an extraordinary
combination of improbable circumstances and could very well never have
arisen at all.” De Duve refers to more possibilities to consider the
universe, in a more affective and aesthetic way through music, art and
literature. This still does not infer, according to him, that a creator is
necessary, who himself may also be in need of having an origin.
Comment: Mr. de Duve apparently concludes from the first quotation
that the element of chance is too shaky a basis to believe there was a
certain sense of purpose in the creation of the universe. He may in his
view draw the correct conclusion, but a conclusion in the opposite
direction -that the universe was created with a specific meaning- may
similarly be possible based on the same premise. The assertion in the
second quotation that the human who feels being part of the purpose of
God is anthropocentric, is in his contribution not supported by sufficient
arguments or data. The possibility that throughout the cosmos intelligent
life exists -a not entirely unlikely possibility- prevents his anthropocentric
option. His reference to the conclusions of Monod mirrors his own
arguments, albeit that Monod's yesteryear’s conclusions are based on
now obsolete science while Monod in drawing his conclusions may be very
influenced by existentialism, that a priori is atheistic or non-theistic at
least.
Mr. de Duve refers in his contribution to his other publications and who
has not read those, cannot draw definitive conclusions regarding his
contribution - now, does this imply laziness of the writer or the reader?
Alternatively, his other publications cannot be of an entirely different
nature, or substantiate opposite conclusions, for which reason it can be
stated that de Duve's arguments cannot support any final conclusion.
They can lead to the conclusion that the universe has no meaning at all,
while the cited arguments that refer to aspects of coincidence or chance
just as well may just refer to the meaningful aspect of the universe. The
title of his contribution shows a resolute no -most likely a personal cry
from the heart- while despite himself from his words a bashful maybe
appears. I would welcome the age wherein nobody, however venerable,
23
tells anyone anymore what to think, what to feel or what to conclude on
the basis of whatever construed or constructed evidence. The days of
authority have gone beyond recall.
John F. Haught - Senior Fellow, Science & Religion, at the
Woodstock Theological Center, Georgetown University.
Yes, there is purpose to the universe.
"The fact that we can ask such a question at all suggests
an affirmative answer.” So begins Haught his contribution
to the debate about whether there is a meaning to the
universe. The problem that the cognitive abilities of
humans could be the result of the accidental outcome of an undirected
evolutionary process, was an aspect of his evolution theory Charles
Darwin was not really happy about, according to Haught, and a problem
for which Darwin had no solution. According to John Haught the solution
to this problem is not in the looking back, where we come from, but in
the future, whereto man develops. When man is wondering about this
problem, he simultaneously gives the answer, because that question
represents the search for truth, because the search ennobles the nature
of the universe. “As long as the search for truth persists, not only can
you trust your mind, you can also trust the universe that has germinated
such an exquisite means of opening itself to what is timelessly worth
treasuring.” In this last quotation John Haught shows in a rather
complicated poetic way that when man can have confidence in himself,
he can put his trust also in the universe that made everything possible.
Comment: Haught is right and yet not. Indeed, that thinking man exists
and that he sees a goal for himself, is the concrete proof of the fact that
the universe has a purpose. So far I can agree with Haught's manner of
reasoning. However, when man does not take the next step, the first
step
has
no
meaning,
the
fact
that
man
thinks
then
becomes
meaningless -he turns himself into a robot- and the purpose of the
universe is crippled. That next step is not being guided by the definitions
prescribed
by
the
universe,
but
to
create
entirely
independent
considerations, which do not necessarily coincide with what the universe
dictates. The aspects that we have to consider we see around us every
day, aspects such authority and hierarchy, prestige and struggle, winning
and losing. The universe is cold and ruthless, and man -instead of going
along with creation- has to aim to rise above it, to venture beyond the
24
dimension of decomposing without composition. In many ways, to rise
above 'the beast'.
Neil deGrasse Tyson - Astrophysicist and the Director of
New York City's Hayden Planetarium. Not sure if there is
purpose to the universe.
"To assert that the universe has a purpose implies the
universe has intent. And intent implies a desired outcome.
But who would do the desiring? And what would a desired
outcome be?” This is the essence of deGrasse Tyson’s
research question. “If you are religious, you might declare that the
purpose of life is to serve God. But if you're one of the 100 billion bacteria
living and working in a single centimeter of our lower intestine (...) you
would give an entirely different answer.” Through what is said in this
quotation deGrasse Tyson wants to put the existence of the human being
within a certain perspective -the perspective of the puny, it seems- and
thus relativize the position and the importance of man. He calls the
alleged importance that man ascribes to himself hubris and concludes
that when we filter out the delusions that follow, “the universe looks
more and more random.” He does not want to exclude completely that
the universe has a purpose, but he puts forward that the evidence is
piling up significantly against the existence of such an intention.
Comment: That Mr. deGrasse Tyson mentions that man 99.9999% of the
cosmic time was not present, and that before us 99.9% of the species
became extinct by violent events, but not that 99.99% of all religion is
hogwash, is an omission that affects his final conclusion. It reveals that
Mr. deGrasse Tyson, perhaps even without realizing it, argues from a
well-defined cultural-historical and therefore also religious background.
He
also
proves
that
by
simple
calculations
only
-how
amusing
whatsoever-, the purpose and the truth of whatever cannot be disclosed.
That he does his calculations so to be simultaneously condescending
about religion -a specific Western Christian understanding of what religion
is: serving God-, proves nothing else than that he should come to terms
with his own religious background, before he can adjudicate about the
whether or not alleged presence of a purpose for the universe - he is not
the only one.
It is striking though that all deGrasse Tyson says may be turned inside
out thus becoming arguments for the existence of God and his purpose
25
with the universe we inhabit - though again within this certain vision on
God. That man 99.9999% of the cosmic time was not present merely
shows that only now it is our turn and that others were before us who
had to have their turn first, what as such could be the explanation that
for 99.9% of the species time was up before we arrived - whether that
was on our planet or in the whole universe. In short, without knowing it
deGrasse Tyson proves that the image of God his culture celebrates is
complete nonsense -not the only aspect- and that man first must dive
deeply into himself to pose the question about whom or what God is -or
otherwise must come with a conclusion on this subject- before trying to
bring down with toddler toys the suspected purpose and origin of the
universe -quite amusing-.
Jane Goodall - Founder of the Jane Goodall Institute for
"Wildlife Research, Education and Conservation" and a UN
Messenger of Peace. Certainly the universe has a purpose.
"Of course science typically scoffs at any belief in a god,
tells us that we have a "God gene" and that the tendency
towards religious belief is simply part of our biological
make up, as inevitable as the universal human smile. Yet
even if this were so, we would still need to ask why?” Later in her
contribution Goodall writes about her emotional experience of organ play
in the beautiful Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris -inaudible low tones of
for instance the organ cause the 'God experience'- and her perception of
the work of Bach. I understand her words from personal experience. One
day I entered the cathedral of Orléans -also France- and at that precise
moment the organ began to play forcefully and majestically. It was like
being welcomed into his church by God himself. Athletes have a similar
primordial experience when they enter a packed stadium, I am told.
Goodall ends with: “Was all the wonder and beauty simply the result of
purposeless gyrations of bits of cosmic dust at the beginning of time? If
not, then there must be some extra-cosmic power, the creator of the big
bang. A purpose in the universe. Perhaps, one day, that purpose will be
revealed.”
Comment: To Mrs. Goodall I would like to say, do we always understand
the ostensibly aimless gyrations in ourselves, the whirlpool that seems to
obligate our inner self? Nevertheless, based on that we come to
viewpoints and principles, actions and their consequences. So we live, so
everyone lives. Man who wants to understand the cosmos, in any way, is
26
like the ant who wants to understand the forest - it will lead nowhere.
Man is ‘condemned’ to deal with his own measure of all things and to
examine himself on the point of the why of his innermost stirrings. Only
when a person reaches the point of understanding himself, the goal of
everything -not only of the universe- is revealed. This all sounds quite
religious, but it is not. At least it has nothing to do with the religions. On
the contrary, examining yourself is possible only then, when you are free
of the religions - and of political partiality, and of self-interest, in short, of
judging one another. There are only two important things in life, your
appreciation of what you see in your mirror and what thereafter you do in
the world. That is what this book is about.
Elie
Wiesel
-
Andrew
W.
Mellon
Professor
in
the
Humanities and University Professor at Boston University.
I hope so, that the universe has a purpose.
"Man’s task is (...) to liberate God, while freeing the forces
of generosity in a world teetering more and more between
curse and promise.” This is the last sentence of Elie
Wiesel's contribution and
by
that simultaneously his
conclusion, here in the form of a plan or a task. In the rest of his essay,
he mainly poses questions, of which it is not always clear whether they
are real questions or rhetorical questions. A teacher often uses the form
of the question to persuade his students towards a certain mind set. It is
a somewhat antiquated teaching method, because it makes much more
sense to let the student formulate his own questions, and his own
hypotheses.
Comment: Professor Wiesel refers to the existential questions formulated
by the Tanakh -fortunately he is open therein-, but simultaneously, it is
unclear whether he actually believes that the moral issues addressed in
the Tanakh apply to all people. It is as if he keeps sitting in his corner, for
he refers to events such as the flood, as if it really happened. From
geology it has become clear that a deluge that covered the whole earth
with water never happened, although in the ending of the last ice
regionally very large floods have occurred. Yahweh destroyed his people
with as cause that evil was rampant, he reports, while gradually
everyone has become aware that the flood story is taken from the
Gilgamish epic6) in which the god destroyed the people, because with
their noise they kept the god too often from sleeping. In short, Professor
27
Wiesel tries to raise some moral issues -rightly so-, that cannot be raised
the way he does.
Moreover, in the perception of man the times in which he lives is always
crucial and inclined to be a journey into the chasm, as Professor Wiesel
foresees for the current time. In every age, man experiences his
situation as balancing on the brink of the abyss and almost never as in
balance with times of prosperity in the offing. Ask at random any Jew, a
typical Roman or the average Chinese, a medieval person trapped in his
world -it is possible, just read- and all will say their time is one of the
most uncertain in history. The Inca, the Cherokee, the Norseman, the
Mongol, nobody will say their time is uneventful, that nothing really
happened and that they could live in peace and harmony raising their
children without fear and hunger.
The Shoah was an extremely horrible event and I hope that it will
continue to be in human memory for a very long time as an example to
the degeneration7) of the human - not even degeneration under certain
circumstances, but the ever-present danger of degeneration. Particularly
because of this reason it clearly takes a major effort for Professor Wiesel
to postulate a meaningful purpose for the universe. So many events in
history heavily damaged his faith in the God of Abraham and Moses which also in his case is quite conceivable. His generosity to offer
liberation to God -and not to refute or deny him, as from disappointment
so many did- is very admirable. However, one can also say that the
ancient God of Abraham -if Abraham really existed- and Moses never
truly has been the true God, but a political instrument in the hands of
Joshua, an opportune political-cultural amalgamation of the Canaanite
Baal -El- and Yahweh, the latter very likely being a legendary tribal
leader or war lord of the Nabateans who in the end by his descendants
got elevated to the status of war god. That would mean that if the God of
the Tanakh does not exist -nor his descendants in the Bible and the
Koran- not God, but man must be liberated. In order not having to
perform a balancing act, but to become balanced, every person indeed
needs to descend deep into himself to liberate himself. The God who then
emerges shows to be completely different from the manipulator who has
governed for eons the physical universe. The emerging ‘God’ who is
discovered at the bottom of the soul, in the hardiest pith of existence,
turns out to be surprisingly similar for everyone. This ‘God’ does not need
to be freed, he-she offers liberation, the release of everything and who
you are.
28
The tortoise and the purpose
a fairy tale come true
First some words concerning the hare, but this is really about the
tortoise. The hare is like rapid man who at every stage of his
development has a conclusion ready for what he sees around him, who
based on what he can imagine makes a prognosis and aligns his actions
accordingly, who measures the distance separating him from what he
believes to be the ultimate goal. That makes him the winner -if the
notion winner would actually exist- in his own perception and arrogant in
the eyes of others who nevertheless wager he cannot lose -if the notion
loss would actually exist-. Since winning and losing do not exist and
arrogance, like beauty, is present only in the eye of the beholder, the
tortoise is not distracted by fads and the illusions of the day and he paves
his way, with time on his back, slowly and irrevocably towards his goal,
the ultimate goal. What that end is nobody knows for sure, because no
one has ever seen it - the tortoise will arrive first. Statements about the
goal and the purposes of it all are as the cries clearly audible in the
bickering of the spectators along the track, exclamations that articulate
their hopes for the winner -if he would exist-, but that of course will
never determine the actual outcome. Some spectators shout their advice,
"You must take this road", "No, take the other way", others yell. The
tortoise tirelessly continues.
Two roads seem to be available in science: exact science and the other
forms of science. The other forms would like to be similar to exact
science and quantify everything they can, even in a ridiculous way. Exact
science is the only form of science that can make statements about
physical reality, but that is about all it can. Some exact scientists claim
thereby that reality is indeed all there is, but that is not so, although
exact scientists keep proclaiming very loudly it is, sometimes ridiculing
with great force of ‘proof’ anyone who speaks against them. Exact
science can measure all kinds of things fantastically, but should not
pretend with that to take God's place on his throne. Or put in less
metaphysical terms, from the study of the language of the universe,
mathematics, much can be inferred, but not everything, any more than
from the language of a people the full social fabric and consistency of that
people can be determined. The other sciences may make statements
about God, but due to the inexactitude of their science they can never
pretend to provide more than an educated vision on the meaning and
purpose of it all. In short, statements about God and his purpose for the
29
universe usually say more about the person making the statement, from
whichever background the statement is given.
To figure out what the possible meaning of the universe could be is no
search for the mathematical centre or a quest for the reflective border of
it. Neither can the meaning nor lack thereof be agreed by consensus on
the available data and interpretations. The journey to the end of night is
not about the world outside, but about the inner world. The journey
through the inner world is not and cannot be determined by the language
of the universe, nor by the language and knowledge of the prophets from
time - ancient or not. Each individual has his and her own path to walk
and can thereby try to find help and inspiration in what others say about
the physical and the metaphysical world. However, everyone's personal
truth, everyone's personal share in the truth, can be discovered only by
the understanding of personal considerations and choices, desires and
ideals. The one truth exists, but will never be seen by any human, let
alone understood. The most ultimate achievable in this universe is finding
one's personal share in the original truth. Yet not, everyone has his
personal truth, because that would isolate everyone from everyone, but
everyone has his and her inalienable and imprescriptible personal share
in the original truth, the meaning of everything. Finding your personal
share is the maximum and only feasible, after a lifelong quest. The
consensus that arises amongst all people who have made or make the
inner quest, does not arise from an externally imposed creed, but from a
growing consensus from within - whereby nobody can be assessed on the
value or correctness of his development. Everyone walks his road at his
and her own pace and truth can never be labelled. This development
does not only mean the end of traditional religions, but also the end of
science as developed after the Enlightenment. As religion will be formed
from inner meaning, if it still can be called religion, also the perspective
of what the purpose of science should be shifts. Each individual is on a
personal inner quest, because every individual in this universe is utterly
alone - or so one thinks at the outset.
30
Notes to “the Arrival”
1)
The first tamers of horses also, 4000 bce.
2)
In the Bhagavad Gita Krishna advocates that the nature of your soul is
determined by your varna or caste. Thus, through reincarnation in fact it is
Krishna who determines what your soul is.
3)
See: http://www.templeton.org/purpose/
4)
First, man experienced his part of the world as the world. Then the world stood
central, with a sun revolving around it. Then the sun became the centre, until it
showed that we live in a galaxy. Later it appeared that this galaxy is not the
universe, but one of many in a larger universe. There is a theory that sees our
universe as one of multiple universes, a multiverse.
5)
What has preceded us in the entire universe is in no way to verify. What is
happening simultaneously with us in another part of the universe neither. That
removal is both in time and distance too great for man to make accurate
observations.
6)
Dr. Irving Finkel is the curator of the British Museum in charge of cuneiform
inscriptions on tablets of clay from ancient Mesopotamia. He has reasons to
believe that the Gilgamish epic is older than the transcript on clay tablets from the
beginning of the 2n d millennium bce. Gilgamish is according to him a real existing
king who lived at the beginning of the 3 rd millennium bce.
For comparison, the oldest texts of the Tanakh and the Bible are from the end of
the 2nd millennium bce and early 1st millennium bce. Moses, or a political-religious
leader like Moses, is believed to have lived around 1250 bce at first in Egypt,
where he studied, amongst others, the manuscripts of pharaoh Akhenaten
(1353–1334 bce), who is said to be the first monotheist.
7)
A combination of several factors, such as mass hysteria, loss of sense of values
and norms, hatred, low self-esteem, to name but a few features. Here the space is
lacking for a deeper analysis.
31

The Arrival The completion Authority and angle

Transcription

Similar documents

The National Museum of Science and Technology

List Manager National Children`s Cancer Society

PODSTAWY FIZYKI ŚRODOWISKA

Book Review: The Goldilocks Enigma

national astronomical observatory of japan four

Cee-Roo Presentation_EN.indd

INSPIRE GK12 Lesson Plan Exploring the Universe One (50 minute) class period

“Baby Stars in the Universe”

Tibisay Sankatsing Nava - Astronomy